Sometimes, I get the feeling that folks don't even read the comments that they are replying to . ..

It's obvious that the companies in San Fransisco DO have a hiring problem because they don't compensate for the enormous increase in the cost of standard of living there and they expect one to take a shitty salary and live out in the sticks commute for an hour one way.

I mean really, who is going to give up a relatively secure job with benefits, a 20 minute commute and a life to move to SF for an obscenely high cost of living, working for a startup that'll more than likely close its doors in 6 - 12 months all for a "competitive" salary?!

NFW! I don't want "competitive". I want obscene!

To be compensated for the risk of working for a startup, I demand at least a 20% increase in pay, cost of living to live near by (none of this commuting for an hour BS) and equity - none of the LOTTERY ticket BS of stock options - those are for suckers.

To work for the "Next Big Thing" startup in SF, I need at least $500,000 + equity.

Unreasonable? Absolutely!

I have a nice comfortable life in a suburb, a house with a yard, tennis, pool, good schools for the kids, 20 minute commute.

All because the tech companies decided that being in the city is retarded. So, they moved out the suburbs where the workers want to live - even the companies whose HQs are downtown have their IT/development in the 'burbs.

SF is for lammoes and mediocre companies with no imagination.

Alpharetta Georgia is where I'm talking about - up the 400 corridor. No shortage of qualified people here.

You don't know what your talking about. NASA missions have changed and with it we have to understand that man will not walk on the moon, Mars, or other off world bodies through government means. That space ship has sailed. In once way I'm okay with it for if companies get more involved, then the risk/reward balance will shift a little more towards risk for reward.

I am reading a book about the Voyages of HMS Beagle, the second and third expeditions. Back then Governments accepted a greater risk (death, l

The summaries are just a suggestion. Really, we're hear to use this excellent soapbox to find like-minded individuals who will agree with our someone non-conformist ideas. We pick comments based not on what they actually say, but how likely they are to get the right eyeballs and to get us modded up by those who think like us:)

I disagree strongly. I didn't bother reading your comment first but I know I disagree with it.

Seriously - I agree with you. Slashdot has become full of stubborn people with weak arguments and no thought processes behind them who demand everyone else accept they are right about everything. They bash comments and insult posters without even understanding what those posters are trying to say. It was always like that to some extent but it's got worse in the last few years.

Unlike the parent, I browse at 0. Last time I read -1, it was horribly spammed with GNAA.

Currently there is no spam problem to speak of. Interestingly many articles still have the message from an ancient spammer with random words and the word "BSD" there somewhere. But that's about it. No GNAA around anymore and almost no advertisements. Should be fine browsing at -1.

By now, several hundred copies of your message have been copy/pasted to random online rot13 websites, causing a blip on the NSA's radar, and having the opposite effect that you probably intended by encoding it...

Or translated, as closely as possible:
"If I want to hide everything I write from the NSA, then I rather write in norwegian mixed dialekts, throw in some arbitrary but entirely understandable misspellings inbetween. Not least I throw in

"I put the weapon in my boot but I was so pissed this morning that I couldn't drive to work."

The NSA would probably be storming the suspect's place of work looking for a really angry person with a weapon shoved into their footwear. What they will find is an unarmed person with a large hangover while their friend is picking up the weapon where they left it in the boot of their car (trunk in American) back at home. In fact I would not be surprise

No. No. I get it. I should apologize for making a comment without reading the whole thread first.

I was completely unaware of the plugin, myself.

Okay, I understand. Thanks for the response.

And actually, reversing your first post for my response allowed me to learn that LeetKey is smart enough to leave the bracketed tags alone. I was highlighting a line at a time to avoid messing them up, then did a two-paragraph block thinking I would have to correct the [/p][p] tags, but they remained correct. Tried it with the remaining quoted paragraphs, and all the tags stayed the same.

1) Read the titles since they're like headlines.2) If the title is interesting, read the summary.3) If the sumary is interesting, read the comments.4) If the summary is REALLY interesting read the article, then read the comments.5) If the summary is REALLY, REALLY interesting and the article is/.ed, see if someone has posted a link to an alternative source for the article.

Of course, none of that matters if the posting concerns something I want to comment on. Nothing says you have to read the summary or the article if you want to comment. RTFA? Nah. Same if I have mod points.

1) Read the titles since they're like headlines.2) If the title is interesting, read the summary.3) If the sumary is interesting, read the comments.4) If the summary is REALLY interesting read the article, then read the comments.5) If the summary is REALLY, REALLY interesting [...]

Personally, I'm more likely than usual to read TFA if I have mod points and am planning to use them. I want to know enough about what's being discussed to know when what looks like an informative or insightful post is really BS from somebody who hasn't the slightest idea of what's actually going on, or when something that looks trivial is more important than it seems.

Lots of comments is kind of tricky. If my skim of the title and summary gets a , "Yeah, everybody and his uncle will be posting the same old thing," then I skip it. If something that should be obscure is generating a lot of comments (probably not goatse thogh), I'll look in to see what the fuss is about.

The articles that bring out philosophical contradictions are the most fun. I love it when posters can't put together a cogent argument for their position because what they want is contradictory but that doesn't stop them from posting and vehemently arguing their contradictory point.

Speaking of/.ed, when was the last time that happened? Seems with the greater speeds this is less likely to happen...

There is probably a correlation to not seeing as many articles with links to obscure sites that can't take a/.ing. Most of the articles linked to of late are to NY Times, BBC, etc. that have plenty of server power and bandwidth. Haven't seen an article that links to something like the high rvelocity potato cannon in a long time.

I'd wondered about that too. If nobody reads the articles (unless they are "new") then how does the Slashdot effect work? Your theory is interesting, although I'd propose they open the article to look at the pictures.

you obviously did not, before going on a English professor rant, you might want to make sure your first point is not...

Do the editors read these stuff?

dumbfuck

And that's part of what's wrong here. Oldhack made a typo, people type comments fast and sometimes they use the wrong word or grammar. That does not make him a 'dumbfuck'. You are being too aggressive and you have no cause to be.

Generally I'll read the Title and Summary. If it's interesting I might go to the Article but generally I'll load up the comments. If the comments indicate the Article might be interesting, either because folks are confused about what the Article said/meant, or because the comments are interesting, there's a good chance I'll read the Article(s) as well.

If it's a low comment count farther down the page, I might just read the Title though. Especially if it's collapsed and the summary isn't visible.

If I'm going to comment, I make sure to read the article first. Every so often there's a story where the summary is completely different, and you can always tell who didn't bother to glance at the article. Also, telling people they got the article wrong is fun.